50,000+ ORDERS COMPLETED  ·  4.9★ TRUSTPILOT
STEAM BOOSTING
ALL 9 STEAM SERVICES
TOOLS
ALL 16 TOOLS
IMBA PREMIUM
Player100 h · region picked for you · 2 comment lists€1.99Pro360 h · +5% on every order · 3 comment lists€4.99EliteNo hour limit · +10% on every order · 5 comment lists · early access to new apps€9.99Hour Boost PanelPREMIUMCompare plans →
MENU
BlogFAQContactReviews ↗

SCS · Research notes · Updated 10 September 2026

Steam Profile Checker: a credibility score you can audit.

Paste a Steam profile and we read what it shows publicly: how mature the account is, what it has actually done in the community, and what Steam has on record. Then we show you the study the reading comes from, so you can decide whether to believe it.

About a second. Five public sources, no login, cached for 24 hours.

74 signals checked21,374,170 accounts in the pool20,992,596 friend-graph edges

1 free scan a day without an account · results cached for 24 hours

What the score sits against

Updated +4,461,170 accounts in the last 7 days

21,374,170
Steam accounts in the pool
9,851,818
checked for bans
1,668,765
with a ban on record · 16.94% of checked
20,992,596
friend-graph edges

Counted inside our pool, not across all of Steam. The pool grows from Steam groups and from crawling the friend lists of banned accounts, so it is not a random sample, and every percentage on this page describes it rather than Steam as a whole.

We do not read Trust Factor. Nobody can.

Valve keeps that number hidden from players and from us alike, and no public field carries it. Any tool that hands you a Trust Factor is showing you its own guess. What we score is what your profile actually shows, and when too little of it is visible we return no score instead of inventing one.

01 · The pool

what the score is measured against

Updated +4,461,170 accounts in the last 7 days

21,374,170
Steam accounts in the pool 1
9,851,818
checked for bans
1,668,765
with a ban on record · 16.94% of checked 1
20,992,596
friend-graph edges
2,833,829
avatar fingerprints
9,802,673
accounts with time snapshots

Also in the pool: 563,365 crawl seed accounts · 26,437 accounts described in full depth · 74 signals checked per scan.

02 · Ban waves

bans per day inside the pool

median 72
2026-03-15peak 2026-06-19 · 7,315 bans2026-09-10

When Valve strikes, the pool shows it. Across the last 180 days the busiest day carried 7,315 bans against a daily median of 72 for those days. Going further back, the all-time daily median is 152, and 8 days sit above ten times that, the heaviest being 2020-08-13 with 12,572 bans, 83 times the all-time median. Counted inside our pool of 21,374,170 accounts, not across all of Steam. Orange marks days above three times the median of the window. Bar heights use a square-root scale so the ordinary days stay readable next to the spikes. 2

03 · The pool's shape

when these accounts were made, and who hides

'03'08'13'18'20'23

Account creation years across the pool, 2003 to 2026. The heaviest year is 2020 with 1,225,057 accounts. Creation dates are readable only on public profiles, so this shape describes the public part of the pool.

public · 89.64% · 8,704,798friends only · 6.56% · 636,908private · 3.80% · 368,868

A hidden profile puts you in the 3.80%. When we cannot measure something, we say so instead of guessing a score. 1

04 · Method

based on observed patterns, not a Valve metric

Prospective cohort

1,898 accounts snapshotted while clean that later caught a ban. The decisive threshold is 3,000 cases. Until we reach it, findings stay labelled as observed patterns rather than predictions.

Anti-leak rule

Every feature has to date from before the ban. Without that rule a model learns the aftermath of a ban rather than the signs that came first.

Systematic sampling

Samples are drawn systematically across the pool. A plain LIMIT N query measures insertion order rather than the population, and it once handed us a sample that was off by five percentage points.

Wilson intervals

Every percentage we publish carries a Wilson confidence interval. Small samples get wide intervals, and we show the width instead of hiding it.

05 · The score

four axes and a ceiling

A · Account maturity30% of score

Age, level, badges, library depth, account standing.

B · Organic activity30% of score

Comments, reviews, workshop, groups, identity, look. Pace matters more than volume.

C · Freshness patterns25% of score

Hour pacing and play patterns between scans. Needs a second scan after 7 to 14 days.

D · Risk records15% of score

Ban records and banned friends. Facts read from Steam, never our opinion.

The ceiling

The less of a profile we can read, the lower the highest score we are willing to give it. That is not a punishment, it is the limit of what we are prepared to claim about something we can only partly see. A full hundred would mean we checked everything and found nothing wrong, so it has to be earned by there being something to check. Open up what is hidden and the ceiling moves, which you can verify with a second scan.

06 · Free and full

the full report is 4.99 EUR, once per profile

Score, ceiling and coveragefree
All four axes with what we could readfree
Ban records read from Steamfree
Two of the changes that move the number mostfree
Where you sit against the studyfree
Every remaining signal by namefull report
A repair plan ordered by effortfull report
Banned friends listed individuallyfull report

Payments are not switched on yet, so today everything in the free column is all there is. Nothing is for sale on this page.

07 · How it works

five requests, about one second

1
You paste a profile link

No login, no password, nothing connected to your account. We read the same public pages any player can open.

2
We read five sources in about a second

The profile page, its XML, ban records, the game library and the friend list. Nothing is written to your account and nothing is changed.

3
We check 74 signals, score 30 of them, and 16 are readable from a single public scan

Deterministically. The same profile in the same state gives the same number, every time, and each result records which version of the weights produced it.

4
We tell you what we could not see

Anything hidden lowers the ceiling rather than the score, because a missing measurement is not a bad measurement.

08 · Myth check

what you will read on forums, and what we can actually say

A checker can tell you your trust is green, yellow or red.

Nobody can read Trust Factor, ourselves included. Valve keeps it hidden and no public field carries it. Any tool handing you a colour is showing you its own guess wearing Valve's clothes. We score what your profile actually shows, and when too little of it is visible we return no score at all rather than invent one.

Every fresh account starts at the bottom.

A new account does not have to start low. What gets a new account treated badly is jumping straight into competitive with nothing else on the profile, because that shape is shared with throwaway accounts. Age is one of the signals we check, not the whole picture.

Trust resets on a clock, so wait fourteen days and start over.

There is no public evidence of a fixed reset clock, and we are not going to invent one. Honestly, the counter-claim is no better evidenced than the myth: nobody outside Valve has shown that waiting works, and nobody has shown that it cannot. What we can measure is the other side of it, on your own profile: signals that arrive gradually hold their value and bursts do not. So the two weeks are not the point. What you do with them is.

Buy an old, well-stocked account and you inherit its good standing.

Valve answered this one itself, and the answer runs the other way: an acquired account carries whatever standing it already had, and acquired accounts commonly sit very low. That is Valve's own wording, not our inference. Buying one also breaks the Steam Subscriber Agreement, which means the seller can pull it back through support and you have no argument. An aged profile is worth something because of what happened on it over the years, and none of that history transfers to the person who paid for it.

Put three or four hundred dollars into Steam and your standing flips.

The price moves every time somebody repeats it: five dollars in one thread, three hundred in the next, five hundred in the one after. Three numbers that cannot all be true, and they cluster on sites that sell skins and cases — the people who profit from you believing it. Valve has never said spending is weighed at all. What money verifiably buys is Prime, which is a phone number and one purchase, not a sliding scale you can climb.

The number in Looking to Play tells you which tier you landed in.

It tells you how many people are queuing near you at that moment, which moves with your region, the hour and the maps you picked. Even the guides pushing this trick hedge it in the same paragraph. Valve states plainly that the number itself cannot be seen from outside, and a lobby counter is not a back door into it.

Report enough players and you drag your own standing down.

Nothing public supports it, and the forum threads that repeat it contain people saying the opposite two replies down. Our own read — ours to argue, not Valve's to confirm — is duller and more likely: someone who reports every lobby makes their own reports count for less, because a report from a person who suspects everyone carries less information. Reporting an actual cheater costs you nothing.

Expensive skins buy you a good standing.

Inventory value is one signal out of the seventy four we check, and quality beats volume everywhere we score. A profile carrying an expensive inventory and nothing else still reads as thin, both to us and to the people who open it before a match.

NOTES

1 The pool grows from Steam groups and from crawling the friend lists of banned accounts, so it is not a random sample of Steam. Every percentage on this page describes our pool and nothing wider.

2 Ban dates are derived from the days-since-last-ban field rather than read directly, so they are accurate to about one day. That field measures the distance to the most recent ban, which means older waves are systematically undercounted.

3 Everything here is retrospective. It describes how accounts that were banned tend to look, not that an account which looks that way will be banned. A ban on your report is a fact we read from Steam, never a forecast we made.

What we read from public profiles, why, and how to say no →

Steam Profile Checker v1.6.0 · What's new →